arXiv subjects

Solon Barocas

Publications and source records attributed to Solon Barocas.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

What We Know about Responsible AI Practices in Industry: A Half Decade of Empirical Research

Responsible AI (RAI) has become a central concern for technology companies, regulators, and the public. How industry practitioners interpret, implement, and sustain RAI work directly shapes the design and deployment of AI systems. As empirical scholarship examining RAI practices in industry has rapidly expanded, findings are dispersed across studies that focus on different roles, organizational contexts, and interventions. This work synthesizes current knowledge through a literature review of 161 empirical studies spanning six years, each engaging industry practitioners via interviews, surveys, workshops, ethnographies, and other methods. Our synthesis reveals both meaningful progress and persistent challenges in industry RAI practice. Practitioner awareness has increased, RAI activities have become more professionalized, and interventions such as toolkits and guidelines are more widely adopted. At the same time, practitioners continue to face substantial barriers, including limited training, uneven organizational support, and a lack of interventions tailored to day-to-day work practices. By consolidating and organizing these findings, we provide a more complete account of industry RAI than any single study to date. We conclude by discussing implications for RAI researchers, practitioners seeking to adopt effective practices, and policymakers aiming to ground governance efforts in the realities of industry contexts.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2026

Beyond "I Can't Help With That": How Child Safety Experts Evaluate AI Chatbot Safety

Youth increasingly turn to AI chatbots for social and emotional support, raising concerns about how these systems respond, especially in high-stakes situations. However, existing child safety evaluations of AI lack grounding in real-world harms that youth experience, rely on unvalidated assumptions about what counts as an appropriate output (e.g., refusal), and typically focus on detecting adversarial prompts or surface-level harms in outputs only. Thus, these evaluations can fail to detect responses that pose harm to youth in practice. To better understand the limitations of current evaluation practices, we conducted interviews with 19 practitioners working directly with youth in vulnerable situations, including social workers, therapists, and psychologists, asking them to reflect on chatbots' responses to risky situations commonly faced by youth, as established in prior empirical work. Practitioners identified chatbot behaviors likely to cause harm as well as those that could meaningfully support youth in difficult moments, discussed the role that chatbots should (and should not) play in these interactions, and offered concrete recommendations for improving chatbot responses. Based on these findings, we provide recommendations for AI child safety evaluation and infrastructure, and highlight the need for incorporating practitioners' perspectives into safety work.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2026

The Fair Lending Model: How the Longest-Running Algorithmic Fairness Programs Work in Practice

U.S. financial institutions subject to fair lending laws have been running algorithmic fairness programs for decades. Despite this long history, remarkably little is known about how these requirements operate in practice. In this paper, we offer the first empirical account of how financial institutions test for and mitigate algorithmic discrimination on the ground. In doing so, we shed light on how the regulatory design of fair lending law and regulation have shaped the policies, processes, and practices of fair lending programs. Drawing on 35 semi-structured interviews with participants across the fair lending ecosystem, we find that while financial institutions have a floor of fairness practices aimed at preventing discrimination in lending largely absent in other domains, the specifics of how firms test for discrimination and search for less discriminatory algorithms varies widely. We also find that regulatory supervision via fair lending examinations has been the key driver of compliance work, but that the practical impact of fair lending programs often depends on how well they can navigate competing business incentives, perceived legal tensions, and regulatory uncertainty. Ultimately, our findings highlight the unique role that supervisory authority has played in successfully fostering fair lending practices -- a regulatory design feature that is distinct from other areas of civil rights law and almost completely absent from recent policy proposals for dealing with algorithmic discrimination.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2026

AI-Assisted Systematization for Evaluating GenAI Systems

Evaluating generative AI (GenAI) systems is challenging because many targets of evaluation are broad, contested concepts, such as "reasoning," "fairness," or "creativity." When these concepts are left underspecified, it becomes unclear what should be measured or how evaluation results should be interpreted. This problem reflects a missing step: systematization, that is, moving from a broad background concept to an explicit, structured account of the concept in measurable terms. To help address the fact that systematization is cognitively demanding and resource-intensive, we investigate whether AI assistance can support this process. To enable AI-assisted systematization and assess its quality, we introduce a structured representation of a systematized concept, a concept spec, and a validation worksheet. We then develop two AI-assisted systematizers: a direct, zero-shot approach and a multi-agent approach that more closely mirrors manual systematization approaches from existing literature. We use these systematizers to produce concept specs for two concepts -- hate-based rhetoric and digital empathy -- and evaluate resulting concept specs on content validity and information recoverability.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

Effects of Generative AI Errors on User Reliance Across Task Difficulty

The capabilities of artificial intelligence (AI) lie along a jagged frontier, where AI systems surprisingly fail on tasks that humans find easy and succeed on tasks that humans find hard. To investigate user reactions to this phenomenon, we developed an incentive-compatible experimental methodology based on diagram generation tasks, in which we induce errors in generative AI output and test effects on user reliance. We demonstrate the interface in a preregistered 3x2 experiment (N = 577) with error rates of 10%, 30%, or 50% on easier or harder diagram generation tasks. We confirmed that observing more errors reduces use, but we unexpectedly found that easy-task errors did not significantly reduce use more than hard-task errors, suggesting that people are not averse to jaggedness in this experimental setting. We encourage future work that varies task difficulty at the same time as other features of AI errors, such as whether the jagged error patterns are easily learned.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2026

Comparison requires valid measurement: Rethinking attack success rate comparisons in AI red teaming

We argue that conclusions drawn about relative system safety or attack method efficacy via AI red teaming are often not supported by evidence provided by attack success rate (ASR) comparisons. We show, through conceptual, theoretical, and empirical contributions, that many conclusions are founded on apples-to-oranges comparisons or low-validity measurements. Our arguments are grounded in asking a simple question: When can attack success rates be meaningfully compared? To answer this question, we draw on ideas from social science measurement theory and inferential statistics, which, taken together, provide a conceptual grounding for understanding when numerical values obtained through the quantification of system attributes can be meaningfully compared. Through this lens, we articulate conditions under which ASRs can and cannot be meaningfully compared. Using jailbreaking as a running example, we provide examples and extensive discussion of apples-to-oranges ASR comparisons and measurement validity challenges.

cs.LG↗

arXiv2025

Statistical Guarantees in the Search for Less Discriminatory Algorithms

U.S. discrimination law can impose liability on firms that fail to adopt a less discriminatory alternative (LDA): a decision policy that achieves the same business objectives while reducing disparate impact on legally protected groups. Recent scholarship argues that this doctrine has direct implications for algorithmic decision-making in high-stakes domains such as employment, lending, and housing, potentially obligating firms to search for "less discriminatory algorithms" (Black et al., 2024). Regulators have at times encouraged proactive LDA searches, reinforcing the expectation of a good-faith effort to identify equally performant models with lower disparate impact. Model multiplicity makes such searches plausible: retraining with different random seeds can yield models with comparable predictive performance but materially different disparate impacts. Yet firms cannot retrain indefinitely, raising a central question: when is the search sufficient to demonstrate good faith? We formalize LDA search under multiplicity as an optimal stopping problem in which a developer seeks to produce evidence that further search is unlikely to yield meaningful improvements. Our main contribution is an adaptive stopping algorithm that provides a high-probability upper bound on the best disparate-impact gains attainable through continued retraining, enabling developers to certify (e.g., to a court) that additional search is unlikely to help. We also show how stronger distributional assumptions over the model space can yield tighter bounds, and we validate the approach on real-world credit and housing datasets.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2025

Bridging Prediction and Intervention Problems in Social Systems

Many automated decision systems (ADS) are designed to solve prediction problems -- where the goal is to learn patterns from a sample of the population and apply them to individuals from the same population. In reality, these prediction systems operationalize holistic policy interventions in deployment. Once deployed, ADS can shape impacted population outcomes through an effective policy change in how decision-makers operate, while also being defined by past and present interactions between stakeholders and the limitations of existing organizational, as well as societal, infrastructure and context. In this work, we consider the ways in which we must shift from a prediction-focused paradigm to an intervention-oriented paradigm when considering the impact of ADS within social systems. We argue this requires a new default problem setup for ADS beyond prediction, to instead consider predictions as decision support, final decisions, and outcomes. We highlight how this perspective unifies modern statistical frameworks and other tools to study the design, implementation, and evaluation of ADS systems, and point to the research directions necessary to operationalize this paradigm shift. Using these tools, we characterize the limitations of focusing on isolated prediction tasks, and lay the foundation for a more intervention-oriented approach to developing and deploying ADS.

cs.LG↗

arXiv2025

Distinguishing Task-Specific and General-Purpose AI in Regulation

Over the past decade, policymakers have developed a set of regulatory tools to ensure AI development aligns with key societal goals. Many of these tools were initially developed in response to concerns with task-specific AI and therefore encode certain assumptions about the nature of AI systems and the utility of certain regulatory approaches. With the advent of general-purpose AI (GPAI), however, some of these assumptions no longer hold, even as policymakers attempt to maintain a single regulatory target that covers both types of AI. In this paper, we identify four distinct aspects of GPAI that call for meaningfully different policy responses. These are the generality and adaptability of GPAI that make it a poor regulatory target, the difficulty of designing effective evaluations, new legal concerns that change the ecosystem of stakeholders and sources of expertise, and the distributed structure of the GPAI value chain. In light of these distinctions, policymakers will need to evaluate where the past decade of policy work remains relevant and where new policies, designed to address the unique risks posed by GPAI, are necessary. We outline three recommendations for policymakers to more effectively identify regulatory targets and leverage constraints across the broader ecosystem to govern GPAI.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2025

Rigor in AI: Doing Rigorous AI Work Requires a Broader, Responsible AI-Informed Conception of Rigor

In AI research and practice, rigor remains largely understood in terms of methodological rigor -- such as whether mathematical, statistical, or computational methods are correctly applied. We argue that this narrow conception of rigor has contributed to the concerns raised by the responsible AI community, including overblown claims about the capabilities of AI systems. Our position is that a broader conception of what rigorous AI research and practice should entail is needed. We believe such a conception -- in addition to a more expansive understanding of (1) methodological rigor -- should include aspects related to (2) what background knowledge informs what to work on (epistemic rigor); (3) how disciplinary, community, or personal norms, standards, or beliefs influence the work (normative rigor); (4) how clearly articulated the theoretical constructs under use are (conceptual rigor); (5) what is reported and how (reporting rigor); and (6) how well-supported the inferences from existing evidence are (interpretative rigor). In doing so, we also provide useful language and a framework for much-needed dialogue about the AI community's work by researchers, policymakers, journalists, and other stakeholders.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2025

Designing Algorithmic Delegates: The Role of Indistinguishability in Human-AI Handoff

As AI technologies improve, people are increasingly willing to delegate tasks to AI agents. In many cases, the human decision-maker chooses whether to delegate to an AI agent based on properties of the specific instance of the decision-making problem they are facing. Since humans typically lack full awareness of all the factors relevant to this choice for a given decision-making instance, they perform a kind of categorization by treating indistinguishable instances -- those that have the same observable features -- as the same. In this paper, we define the problem of designing the optimal algorithmic delegate in the presence of categories. This is an important dimension in the design of algorithms to work with humans, since we show that the optimal delegate can be an arbitrarily better teammate than the optimal standalone algorithmic agent. The solution to this optimal delegation problem is not obvious: we discover that this problem is fundamentally combinatorial, and illustrate the complex relationship between the optimal design and the properties of the decision-making task even in simple settings. Indeed, we show that finding the optimal delegate is computationally hard in general. However, we are able to find efficient algorithms for producing the optimal delegate in several broad cases of the problem, including when the optimal action may be decomposed into functions of features observed by the human and the algorithm. Finally, we run computational experiments to simulate a designer updating an algorithmic delegate over time to be optimized for when it is actually adopted by users, and show that while this process does not recover the optimal delegate in general, the resulting delegate often performs quite well.

cs.GT↗

arXiv2025

Validating LLM-as-a-Judge Systems under Rating Indeterminacy

The LLM-as-a-judge paradigm, in which a judge LLM system replaces human raters in rating the outputs of other generative AI (GenAI) systems, plays a critical role in scaling and standardizing GenAI evaluations. To validate such judge systems, evaluators assess human--judge agreement by first collecting multiple human ratings for each item in a validation corpus, then aggregating the ratings into a single, per-item gold label rating. For many items, however, rating criteria may admit multiple valid interpretations, so a human or LLM rater may deem multiple ratings "reasonable" or "correct." We call this condition rating indeterminacy. Problematically, many rating tasks that contain rating indeterminacy rely on forced-choice elicitation, whereby raters are instructed to select only one rating for each item. In this paper, we introduce a framework for validating LLM-as-a-judge systems under rating indeterminacy. We draw theoretical connections between different measures of judge system performance under different human--judge agreement metrics, and different rating elicitation and aggregation schemes. We demonstrate that differences in how humans and LLMs resolve rating indeterminacy when responding to forced-choice rating instructions can heavily bias LLM-as-a-judge validation. Through extensive experiments involving 11 real-world rating tasks and 9 commercial LLMs, we show that standard validation approaches that rely upon forced-choice ratings select judge systems that are highly suboptimal, performing as much as 31% worse than judge systems selected by our approach that uses multi-label "response set" ratings to account for rating indeterminacy. We conclude with concrete recommendations for more principled approaches to LLM-as-a-judge validation.

cs.LG↗

arXiv2025

AI Automatons: AI Systems Intended to Imitate Humans

There is a growing proliferation of AI systems designed to mimic people's behavior, work, abilities, likenesses, or humanness -- systems we dub AI automatons. Individuals, groups, or generic humans are being simulated to produce creative work in their styles, to respond to surveys in their places, to probe how they would use a new system before deployment, to provide users with assistance and companionship, and to anticipate their possible future behavior and interactions with others, just to name a few applications. The research, design, deployment, and availability of such AI systems have, however, also prompted growing concerns about a wide range of possible legal, ethical, and other social impacts. To both 1) facilitate productive discussions about whether, when, and how to design and deploy such systems, and 2) chart the current landscape of existing and prospective AI automatons, we need to tease apart determinant design axes and considerations that can aid our understanding of whether and how various design choices along these axes could mitigate -- or instead exacerbate -- potential adverse impacts that the development and use of AI automatons could give rise to. In this paper, through a synthesis of related literature and extensive examples of existing AI systems intended to mimic humans, we develop a conceptual framework to help foreground key axes of design variations and provide analytical scaffolding to foster greater recognition of the design choices available to developers, as well as the possible ethical implications these choices might have.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2025

Position: Evaluating Generative AI Systems Is a Social Science Measurement Challenge

The measurement tasks involved in evaluating generative AI (GenAI) systems lack sufficient scientific rigor, leading to what has been described as "a tangle of sloppy tests [and] apples-to-oranges comparisons" (Roose, 2024). In this position paper, we argue that the ML community would benefit from learning from and drawing on the social sciences when developing and using measurement instruments for evaluating GenAI systems. Specifically, our position is that evaluating GenAI systems is a social science measurement challenge. We present a four-level framework, grounded in measurement theory from the social sciences, for measuring concepts related to the capabilities, behaviors, and impacts of GenAI systems. This framework has two important implications: First, it can broaden the expertise involved in evaluating GenAI systems by enabling stakeholders with different perspectives to participate in conceptual debates. Second, it brings rigor to both conceptual and operational debates by offering a set of lenses for interrogating validity.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2025

Understanding the LLM-ification of CHI: Unpacking the Impact of LLMs at CHI through a Systematic Literature Review

Large language models (LLMs) have been positioned to revolutionize HCI, by reshaping not only the interfaces, design patterns, and sociotechnical systems that we study, but also the research practices we use. To-date, however, there has been little understanding of LLMs' uptake in HCI. We address this gap via a systematic literature review of 153 CHI papers from 2020-24 that engage with LLMs. We taxonomize: (1) domains where LLMs are applied; (2) roles of LLMs in HCI projects; (3) contribution types; and (4) acknowledged limitations and risks. We find LLM work in 10 diverse domains, primarily via empirical and artifact contributions. Authors use LLMs in five distinct roles, including as research tools or simulated users. Still, authors often raise validity and reproducibility concerns, and overwhelmingly study closed models. We outline opportunities to improve HCI research with and on LLMs, and provide guiding questions for researchers to consider the validity and appropriateness of LLM-related work.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2024

What Constitutes a Less Discriminatory Algorithm?

Disparate impact doctrine offers an important legal apparatus for targeting discriminatory data-driven algorithmic decisions. A recent body of work has focused on conceptualizing one particular construct from this doctrine: the less discriminatory alternative, an alternative policy that reduces disparities while meeting the same business needs of a status quo or baseline policy. However, attempts to operationalize this construct in the algorithmic setting must grapple with some thorny challenges and ambiguities. In this paper, we attempt to raise and resolve important questions about less discriminatory algorithms (LDAs). How should we formally define LDAs, and how does this interact with different societal goals they might serve? And how feasible is it for firms or plaintiffs to computationally search for candidate LDAs? We find that formal LDA definitions face fundamental challenges when they attempt to evaluate and compare predictive models in the absence of held-out data. As a result, we argue that LDA definitions cannot be purely quantitative, and must rely on standards of "reasonableness." We then identify both mathematical and computational constraints on firms' ability to efficiently conduct a proactive search for LDAs, but we provide evidence that these limits are "weak" in a formal sense. By defining LDAs formally, we put forward a framework in which both firms and plaintiffs can search for alternative models that comport with societal goals.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2024

Machine Unlearning Doesn't Do What You Think: Lessons for Generative AI Policy and Research

"Machine unlearning" is a popular proposed solution for mitigating the existence of content in an AI model that is problematic for legal or moral reasons, including privacy, copyright, safety, and more. For example, unlearning is often invoked as a solution for removing the effects of specific information from a generative-AI model's parameters, e.g., a particular individual's personal data or the inclusion of copyrighted content in the model's training data. Unlearning is also proposed as a way to prevent a model from generating targeted types of information in its outputs, e.g., generations that closely resemble a particular individual's data or reflect the concept of "Spiderman." Both of these goals--the targeted removal of information from a model and the targeted suppression of information from a model's outputs--present various technical and substantive challenges. We provide a framework for ML researchers and policymakers to think rigorously about these challenges, identifying several mismatches between the goals of unlearning and feasible implementations. These mismatches explain why unlearning is not a general-purpose solution for circumscribing generative-AI model behavior in service of broader positive impact.

cs.LG↗

arXiv2024

A Shared Standard for Valid Measurement of Generative AI Systems' Capabilities, Risks, and Impacts

The valid measurement of generative AI (GenAI) systems' capabilities, risks, and impacts forms the bedrock of our ability to evaluate these systems. We introduce a shared standard for valid measurement that helps place many of the disparate-seeming evaluation practices in use today on a common footing. Our framework, grounded in measurement theory from the social sciences, extends the work of Adcock & Collier (2001) in which the authors formalized valid measurement of concepts in political science via three processes: systematizing background concepts, operationalizing systematized concepts via annotation procedures, and applying those procedures to instances. We argue that valid measurement of GenAI systems' capabilities, risks, and impacts, further requires systematizing, operationalizing, and applying not only the entailed concepts, but also the contexts of interest and the metrics used. This involves both descriptive reasoning about particular instances and inferential reasoning about underlying populations, which is the purview of statistics. By placing many disparate-seeming GenAI evaluation practices on a common footing, our framework enables individual evaluations to be better understood, interrogated for reliability and validity, and meaningfully compared. This is an important step in advancing GenAI evaluation practices toward more formalized and theoretically grounded processes -- i.e., toward a science of GenAI evaluations.

cs.CY↗